BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 326
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: strickland
VERSION: 4/13/09
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
SUBJECT:
Housing elements and foreclosures
DESCRIPTION:
This bill requires cities and counties to include within the
housing needs assessment portion of their housing elements a
quantification of their existing and projected foreclosure rates
and an analysis of the impact of foreclosures on housing needs.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to
prepare and adopt a general plan, including a housing element,
to guide the future growth of a community. Following a
staggered statutory schedule, cities and counties located within
the territory of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must
revise their housing elements every eight years, and cities and
counties in rural non-MPO regions must revise their housing
elements every five years. Before each revision, each community
is assigned its fair share of housing for each income category
through the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process. A
housing element must identify and analyze existing and projected
housing needs, identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning
to meet its share of the RHNA, and ensure that regulatory
systems provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain,
housing development. The Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) reviews both draft and adopted housing
elements to determine whether or not they are in substantial
compliance with the law.
This bill requires cities and counties to include within the
SB 326 (STRICKLAND) Page 2
housing needs assessment portion of their housing elements a
quantification of their existing and projected foreclosure rates
and an analysis of the impact of foreclosures on housing needs.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . Foreclosure rates are at historic highs,
and with the recession and banks tightening their lending
guidelines, many foreclosed homes cannot be sold. These homes
are generally left vacant and can become a blight on the
community. They can also become a magnet for crime. By
requiring cities and counties to analyze the impact of
foreclosures, this bill seeks to facilitate local efforts to
address the impacts.
2.Already allowed but not required . While housing element law
does specify a number of items that must be included within
the housing needs assessment portion of a city or county's
housing element, nothing prevents a city or county from adding
additional data or analysis that is relevant to the
jurisdiction's housing needs. As a result, cities and
counties may already quantify the level of foreclosures and
analyze its impact on housing needs as part of the housing
element. This bill simply requires such an analysis.
3.A cyclical concern . Historically, foreclosure rates have
averaged about one percent. While this average masks a fairly
large degree of variation from year to year, it is generally
only during times of economic stress or recession that high
rates of foreclosure cause concern from a public policy
perspective. Over the last 30 years in California,
foreclosure rates have hit or exceeded two percent only during
the recession of the mid 1990s and now. A housing element
covers an eight-year planning period in most cases. It is not
clear how the quantification and analysis of foreclosure rates
at a point in time when the housing element is being developed
will inform decisions regarding medium-term housing programs
and planning.
4.Projecting foreclosure rates . This bill requires cities and
counties to quantify their projected foreclosure rates. While
cities and counties can probably obtain such projections
readily from various sources, it is not clear that their
accuracy can be relied on over the medium term. For example,
most projections available in 2006 probably did not come close
to predicting the foreclosure rates that developed in 2008 and
SB 326 (STRICKLAND) Page 3
2009, if they even predicted an increase at all.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 22, 2009)
SUPPORT: County of Santa Barbara (sponsor)
OPPOSED: None received.